|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 187 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 22:29 UTC 2006 |
similarly, I believe that if men were the ones risking pregnancy, there would
be no debate about the morning after pill. in this society, certainly in the
past, men making decisions for women was acceptable, women making decisions
for men not acceptable.
|
tod
|
|
response 188 of 254:
|
Mar 9 22:53 UTC 2006 |
If biology was reversed, Wal*Mart wouldn't be the discussion because the day
after pill would be at every convenience store and 7-11 in the country. Guys
just don't want to fuss with stuff like that. Its too easy for them to tell
a woman what to do because they're clueless what a woman's personal life is
like from the plumbing and emotional perspective.
|
naftee
|
|
response 189 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:14 UTC 2006 |
they want to build a wal-mart in the old quarry in st-michel. the usual
arguments.
i'm sorry ; i can only think of off-topic stuff to write because i only read
the last response.
where did richard lie ?!
|
bru
|
|
response 190 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:17 UTC 2006 |
I have always found that arguement to be fecitious, richard. If red was green
the roses would be weeds. Women have a lot of control over their bodies, just
as men do. They are more than capable of making logical decisions. OR are
they?
|
edina
|
|
response 191 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:26 UTC 2006 |
Oh my God....and Twila hasn't killed you yet?
|
marcvh
|
|
response 192 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:41 UTC 2006 |
If biology were reversed, then men would be women, and women would be men.
Duh. Why is it so hard for some people to engage in feminist rhetoric
without straying into misandry?
|
richard
|
|
response 193 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:48 UTC 2006 |
marcvh, if you insist then, just consider if BOTH men and women could
get pregnant. But in every other way, men and women played the same
roles in society. In that case, abortion would be legal IMO and so
would the morning after pill. Why? Because men in this society would
not place the same restrictions on their decision making that they
would have no problem placing on women.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 194 of 254:
|
Mar 10 00:52 UTC 2006 |
See what I mean?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 195 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:05 UTC 2006 |
Richard is so dense he's apparently unable to see or acknowledge the many
women who would like nothing better than to restrict the reproductive
freedom of other women. So the answer to your question is "no." Richard is
incapable of seeing certain things.
|
richard
|
|
response 196 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:23 UTC 2006 |
I never said there weren't women who are pro-life. Of course there
are. What I'm saying is that in the history of this country, MEN have
made the decisions more often than not, and MEN will willingly
restrict the choices a woman can make and will NOT willingly restrict
the choices that they can make.
Its a double standard. A guy who sleeps around is a stud. A woman
who sleeps around is a whore. Why? Because in some people's minds,
men have the right to make more decisions and engage in more
activities than women do.
|
richard
|
|
response 197 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:25 UTC 2006 |
And marcvh and cyklone, if you are saying there is no sexism in our
society, and that sexism hasn't played a role in shaping attitudes and
creating laws, I submit that you are not living in the real world.
|
scholar
|
|
response 198 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:28 UTC 2006 |
Re. 196: Actually, it's because, ultimately, women can only have one person
pregnant with their children at once and they HAVE to provide MUCH more for
their children by default than men.
This is what the science of evolutionary psychology has taught us.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 199 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:33 UTC 2006 |
Sorry Richard, you only responded twice in a row! If only you had responded
a third and fourth time, you might have convinced me. But, instead, I now
believe that there is no sexism in society. That's what Richard said, and
I'm sure it's definitely the truth and not just some bizarre non-sequitur
he made up out of nowhere. Absolutely.
|
richard
|
|
response 200 of 254:
|
Mar 10 01:37 UTC 2006 |
marcvh re-read my post, I did NOT state as a fact that you believe
there is no sexism in society. I said that if, IF...I F...you believe
there is no sexism in society. Do you not know what the word IF
means? sheesh
|
johnnie
|
|
response 201 of 254:
|
Mar 10 02:00 UTC 2006 |
People keep saying that if women are allowed to opt out via abortion
or adoption, guys should be able to opt out, too. That's crap.
Abortion and adoption are not true options for many women. Why not say
guys can opt out of child support if they agree to castration or
suicide? Sounds perfectly fair to me.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 202 of 254:
|
Mar 10 03:32 UTC 2006 |
Richard, given how many women are willing to "oppress" other women, don't you
find your claim "da Man" is keeping them down just a tad patronizing?
|
scholar
|
|
response 203 of 254:
|
Mar 10 03:56 UTC 2006 |
i like women because they're neat.
|
klg
|
|
response 204 of 254:
|
Mar 10 04:06 UTC 2006 |
(JEP: Stop calling RW an idiot and a liar. That's my job.)
|
slynne
|
|
response 205 of 254:
|
Mar 10 04:34 UTC 2006 |
I believe that abortion should be legal because before birth, the fetus
is dependant on a woman's body and I strongly believe that women should
have the right to make medical decisions about their own bodies.
However, I think that both men and women should have equal rights after
the child is born. If a child is born and the woman wants to put it up
for adoption and doesnt want to be a parent but the father of the child
*doesnt* want to put it up for adoption and instead wants to raise it
himself, the woman should be required to pay him child support. As far
as I know, that is how things are currently. Just like how if after a
child is born, if the man wants to put it up for adoption and the woman
doesnt, he is liable for child support. Those guys with that lawsuit are
creating "unfairness" where it doesnt exist.
|
jep
|
|
response 206 of 254:
|
Mar 10 14:43 UTC 2006 |
re resp:184: I explained, in resp:100, that I am against the man's
lawsuit in part because it would increase the number of abortions.
Some pregnant women are pretty much going to be forced toward abortion
because they're not going to have financial support or paternal help in
raising their children. It is better to eliminate the option of
abortion, and also to eliminate the option of evading paternal
responsibility. Neither of those wrongs are going away completely, but
there is no need to increase them.
I am also, separately, against the guy's lawsuit because it would also
increase the number of single women raising children without the
financial support and physical involvement of the fathers. Due to a
hypothetical law based on this principle, some number of men would run
away from their responsibilities to their children, with the woman
bearing and raising the child herself anyway. There's way too much of
that already. We don't need anything that will make it happen even
more.
The lawsuit is for the dads and against their children. I don't see
any "up" side to that lawsuit at all.
|
twenex
|
|
response 207 of 254:
|
Mar 10 15:37 UTC 2006 |
I hav olways fund brus speling to b worng.
|
keesan
|
|
response 208 of 254:
|
Mar 10 16:30 UTC 2006 |
Nobody is forced into having an abortion because they don't have money to
raise a child. They can always give birth and put the child up for adoption.
They also have the option of accepting government aid if they are low income.
|
scholar
|
|
response 209 of 254:
|
Mar 10 16:38 UTC 2006 |
Right, because children raised on government aid and children raised in foster
homes are many times more likely to have good lives than children who grow
up in homes with biological parents who have enough to support them.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 210 of 254:
|
Mar 10 18:09 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
richard
|
|
response 211 of 254:
|
Mar 10 19:08 UTC 2006 |
too many children being born places excessive monetary pressures on the
government, one way or another. The Morning After pill is something fiscal
conservatives should support, because we all benefit from unwanted births
going down, and from the birth rate in general going down.
|